Duello v. Buchanan County Board of Supervisors
628 F.3d 968
8th Cir.2010Background
- Duello, an Operator II in Buchanan County's Secondary Road Department since 1988, used a maintainer and dump truck to maintain approximately 74 miles of roads and needed a CDL.
- In October 2006, Duello suffered a seizure, was hospitalized, and was barred from driving or working near moving machinery for at least six months, resulting in FMLA leave through December 2009.
- Duello submitted medical information and anticipated resumed duties by April 2007 if no further seizures occurred; the CBA allowed up to one year of unpaid leave subject to County discretion.
- On January 2–3, 2007, the Board terminated Duello for a disability and lack of reasonable prospect of recovery; in January 2007 a renewed request for reinstatement and leave was denied in a subsequent meeting.
- Duello filed ADA and ICRA claims; the district court granted summary judgment, holding he was not a qualified individual under the ADA due to inability to perform essential functions at the time.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, focusing on whether driving and working around machinery were essential functions and whether the County had an ongoing practice of excusing temporarily disabled employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Duello a qualified individual under the ADA at the time of termination? | Duello could perform core duties with accommodation if needed. | Duello could not perform essential functions (driving, machinery work) at termination. | No; Duello was not qualified at the time. |
| Did evidence of the County’s leave/accommodation practices create a genuine issue on essential functions? | Regular excusal of temporarily disabled employees shows non-essential functions were flexible. | No ongoing policy; evidence inadequate to prove non-essential functions for Duello. | Evidence insufficient to show non-essential functions or ongoing policy. |
| Does the fact that Duello was regarded as disabled affect entitlement to accommodations? | Regarded-as status should trigger accommodation rights. | Regarded-as claim is not entitled to accommodations under the ADA in this context. | Duello’s “regarded as” status did not require accommodations here; focus remains on actual qualifications. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kozisek v. County of Seward, 539 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 2008) (defines disability prong under ADA and major life activities)
- Wenzel v. Missouri-American Water Co., 404 F.3d 1038 (8th Cir. 2005) (elements of a prima facie ADA discrimination claim)
- Kammueller v. Loomis, Fargo & Co., 383 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 2004) (essential functions are fundamental duties; employer judgment is probative)
- Browning v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 1999) (time of qualification assessed at the moment of adverse action)
- Weber v. Strippit, Inc., 186 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 1999) (regarded-as claim not entitled to accommodations)
- Workman v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 165 F.3d 460 (6th Cir. 1999) (regularly provided benefits cannot constitute a required accommodation)
- Gretillat v. Care Initiatives, 481 F.3d 649 (8th Cir. 2007) (ADA claims analyzed in light of the ADA as interpreted by the court)